BLOCK DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed purporting to terminate the services of the 3rd respondent in the year 1989. The details of employment admitted by the petitioner revealed that he had been working from the year 1986 till the year 1989 and he had in each year 240 days and more of service. The termination which was abrupt without serving a notice was the cause for a reference for an adjudication before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that there had been adequate proof of his engagement for more than 240 days in every calendar year and particularly of the year immediately prior to the termination of service, found that there was a violation of statutory mandate of Section 25F and directed reinstatement.

(2.) The contention on behalf of the Panchayat is that there had been no written order of appointment and that he had been employed only as a daily rated worker under a scheme to provide for employment under Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme and it was funded by the State Government and the work which was entrusted to various persons was reclamation of banjar/Kallar land pertaining to respective Panchayat Samitis. The petitioner would contend therefore that the employment which had been done and where in respect of fulfillment of a programme which in the very nature of things must be taken as the employment done on a contract for a particular purpose and the result of non-renewal of contract of employment on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained would not qualify for the expression retrenchment for application of notice and compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) I have no doubt in my mind that the 3rd respondent had been working for 240 days continuously for a year before the date when his services were terminated. It is not merely the working for a particular number of days and the manner of termination that would be relevant in order that a violation of mandate under Section 25F is applied. It has to be also seen that apart from the fact that a person had been working for 240 days the termination itself must come within the four corners of the definition of 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The circumstances under which an employment is given would obtain relevance, for Section 2 contains four exceptions to the definition of retrenchment and for our purpose the exception No. 3 brought through an amendment of Act 49 of 1984 w.e.f. 18.08.1984 would obtain significance. Section 2(oo)(bb) is as follows:-